Jump to content

Jartsev

Moderators
  • Posts

    1,289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Jartsev

  1. Are you holding mouse button depressed, while attempting to lock on target? If you just making left click, missile will not lock.
  2. Check My Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\reports folder for detailed AARs in .html format. BTW, this folder needs to be purged from time to time...
  3. Only armor around opening for TSh was reinforced actually, because original design had very nasty gap there.
  4. Well, unlike electronics and optronics, development of small arms and direct fire medium caliber weapons reached it limits a few decades ago and any really significant progress is not possible, actually... Its not possible to go further with conventional propellants and projectile designs.
  5. Same 9P135M-series launcher is used for AT-4 and AT-5 missiles. AT-5, if fired from any launcher except 9P148(BRDM-AT) have range reduced to 3000 meters; limiting factor is a 17,5 sec. operation time of T-307B batteries providing electric power to launcher`s control unit.
  6. Yes, launcher behind RTO hatch is for 90mm 9M41 illumination rockets. PRP-3 do not have smoke grenade launchers(not sure if it got them during overhauls), but can generate smoke by injecting fuel to engine exhaust(just like basic BMP-1).
  7. No, it does not. Launcher is for illumination rockets(not implemented currently). In SB TI is used as stand-in for radar, which is, in fact, a primary sensor of PRP-3
  8. Actually idea of creating tank with missile-only armament belongs to Konev and Malyshev
  9. See, when it comes to tank destroyer role, BRDM-2-based 1P133, 1P137 and 1P148 can do exactly same job as IT-1(just because tank destroyer is not supposed to operate in single formations with MBTs) , but with much unit cost, and much lesser logistics, maintenance and training requirements.
  10. Making ATGW carrier with tank armor is tactically and economically unreasonable, and IT-1 was best proof of this.
  11. Soviet motorized rifle troops never had uniform painted in dazzle patterns(KZS and KZM-P coveralls are not uniform items but, respectively a NBC defense and engineer gear); while naval infantry, airborne troops and aircraft crews got uniforms painted in "Butan" pattern at the end of 80s. -"Zapad-81" exercise; group of infantry officers wearing KZM-P coveralls. Normally KZM-P was worn over regular field uniform, but in case of hot weather it was allowed to be worn over underwear. -another photo made during "Zapad-81".
  12. Yes, this is a software limitation. Create and attach to a vehicle 6-man rifle team(this imposes other limitations- team can not be split to smaller units), and then create and attach 2-man Javelin team(note- you should create this team by converting 2-man rifle team); now you can assign proper unit names. Other option is just to go with two standard 4-man rifle teams, and convert one of them to ATGM unit.
  13. In real life most of ATGMs can be safely fired from inside of buildings, if room's internal volume is sufficient.
  14. Clear set of features? Do you ever know that in very same time period 3 different turrets were used for very same "T-72A"? 2 engines? 2 stabilizers? Which year 1A40 was introduced to series production T-72s? BTW, what is the difference between 1A40 and 1A40-1? When 1K120 guided weapon system was introduced? And most important but funny question- what is the value of all said changes from end-user point of view? Its a very moot dispute.
  15. No. If formular says "ΠΆ-72A"- its T-72A, and if very same formular says "T-72B"- its T-72B. Welcome to world of military accounting
  16. Post-1983 T-72A may have all mentioned features. Also it can be fitted with guided missile system... You can not call exact model without checking vehicle's formular.
  17. Administrative march can be replicated even now with proper scripting of " damage", "damage if..." and "repair if..." options...
  18. Hmmm... I will re-check sight controls, but there is no need to open armored door for day operation, since day optics uses cut-out in the right side of the door
  19. Ouch, sorry for hijacking the thread One of vehicles from my personal wishlist:
  20. And now you are terribly wrong. This document explicitly prohibits use of M900 in tanks other than Abrams; "M1 only" superseded by capital bold "Warning!" have very straight meaning "Never ever try!!!"(just because word "Warning!", if used in manuals always means direct hazard to operator's life or health- this is international standard for english-languaged technical documentation). As for foreign users. First, M900 is hardly an exportable round because of DU penetrator. Second- foreign users of M60A3 are generally using translations of US manuals, or local compilations based on original american documentation. Third- if foreign user desires to use non-standard ammo, this is possible only if evaluation(in fact a small research study involving engineering analysis and damn lot of tests, which can take a lot of time) is successful, e.g. new ammo is safe to use, no compatibility issues, specifications claimed by manufacturer are met and so on. Ammo is not being fielded just because it looks sexy in promo flyer.
  21. Gun mount used in M60 series of tanks not rated to handle recoil produced by firing of M900, disregarding of tank`s production or retrofit date, while, as TSe419E wrote, M1 or M1IP can have incompatible breech assy. Just 2 very simple facts... P.S. I strongly recommend to read TB 9-2350-356-14 at least.
  22. Well, breech manufacturing method(forging vs.casting, if memory does not cheats me) is the first bottleneck; second one is a gun mount design and particularly recoil mechanism(used on M1 can handle higher recoil load)...
×
×
  • Create New...